The EU thread
•
Page 3

andytheadequate wrote:
With a proportional representation democratic model, coalitions would be the norm. And as others have said, we only vote for people to make a decision for us, in a true democracy everyone would be able to vote on every issue (which would be impossible, and probably an utter nightmare)

Not neccesarily. You could get political parties to come up with proposed laws and people could vote on the internet.

This whole a true democracy would be hell, makes it clear we don't live in a democracy.

They only needed that many seats to form a majority. Coalitions generally make governments more reasonable as they can't just put through anything they want to, they need to appeal to a wider group of people.

And not everyone has access to the internet, or even a computer/tablet, so it wouldn't be democratic even if we could vote on the internet.

Moot_Point wrote:
@TheSaint In a democracy, it is normally the party with the most amount of votes that runs the Government. A coalition allows parties without a majority vote to seize control.

In a sense, if the BNP formed a coalition, they too could rise to power and form a Government.

The Tories got the majority of votes.

Yes, but only with the culmination of the Liberal Democrats votes. They didn't win outright.

You're moving the goal posts, you said the most amount of votes first and that's what the Tories got. They did win, if by 'outright' you mean an 'overall majority' then you're correct, but they could have formed a government without that, albeit a nurfed one, so it's still wrong

They only needed that many seats to form an *overall* majority. They could have formed a government as they stood, there was nothing constitutionally stopping them. The reason to form a coalition is purely practical: as a minority government it would be easier for the other parties to vote against you as a block, so you'd effectively have to negotiate an ad-hoc coalition for every act of parliament you took a vote on.

I think the problem with letting the public decide things is that the public don't have the time, resources or information to make decisions which take in to full account the implications of them, and how to manage those implications.

So put the question "Do you want more money spent on cancer treatment?" and obviously everybody says yes. So then it's "So what are you going to cut funding for? Or are you going to increase taxation? Or both? What are you using to make a decision to fund one thing more than another? What makes sure that's fair?" And then it's, "what are you going to do with all the people who needed the thing you just cut? And who are you going to tax? How is that fair? What about the impact of those tax changes?"

It is really difficult in of itself to get that kind of thinking right (I know this is a EU thread and not a health thread, but same applies in all areas.)
Having to get that right and *then* explain to everybody via a media that will simplify and distort everything you say? Madness.

One thing I've really changed my mind about over the years is the house of lords. I think they do a really important job, and making them elected may be ideologically good for a democracy, but would remove the only real proper scrutiny our government has.

Agreed, have said the same many times before. Some are old duffers who offer little other than experience in how the place works, but others are placed there because they have the technical knowhow to scrutinise policy making.

I've a lot of time for Vivianne Reding's opinions personally, but as always with these things I suspect the devil is in the detail. This press release just contains the aims of the legislation (if I can call it that), not any of the nitty gritty.

Even so, I'm sure there will be a lot of debate about the 'right to be forgotten'. Plenty of economically minded people will be concerned about the costs of doing that, and personally I'm a little concerned about the clause 'if there are no legitimate grounds for retaining it'. I'm sure that can be construed to apply to all sorts of cases. The ICO will probably need to be given even more manpower and responsibilities, which I can't see the Tories being too keen on in the UK.

Lady Baroness Noaks speech pertaining to the EU. I was glad to hear that there are reports that indicate there is no evidence that a no vote would hurt the economy. So, are the economists just scaremongering those who know no better that not joining the EU would be detrimentally disastrous for England's economic future.

@DaM That is for those who want to join the EU to explain, as there are plenty here who have already decided that not joining the EU would be disastrous to our economy. I have asked for economic proof before, but no-one as yet has provided a reasonable answer, with links to back up their points.

@RedSparrows I think the Lords know more than I about the effects of withdrawal from the EU, so why do I need to prove myself otherwise?

When it comes to anything to do with the EU, I will be watching the debates in the Lords instead of listening to the backbiting in the commons. And yes, I will be watching this topic of debate like a hawk.

Why aren't you looking for flaws in a pro-EU argument to strengthen your own case, rather than assuming there isn't one because nobody has fed it to you?

We all base our own critical position in favour of those we deem cleverer than ourselves (or, perhaps, more sympathetic?), and more knowledgable. But hopefully we don't throw it away entirely in doing so. 'Joining the EU' is so wrong as to be laughable.

@RedSparrows I thought the debate I linked to was a reasoned debate. Most (if not the majority) of the Lords hold the highest places in the industries that would be affected by our withdrawal from the EU, so they would be more knowledgeable in that sense.

Are you saying that listening to them would be folly, when we all know that commons politics are influenced by business and central banks? And that we never get the full picture from the government as to why it is so important to join.

Comparing the two sides of the house, the Lords seem to speak with more reason and sense, in a time when reason and sense are replaced with scaremongering and poor arguments from those who seek to profit from England's further integrating into a federal state.

Moot_Point wrote:
@RedSparrows I thought the debate I linked to was a reasoned debate. Most (if not the majority) of the Lords hold the highest places in the industries that would be affected by our withdrawal from the EU, so they would be more knowledgeable in that sense.

Are you saying that listening to them would be folly, when we all know that commons politics are influenced by business and central banks? And that we never get the full picture from the government as to why it is so important to join.

Comparing the two sides of the house, the Lords seem to speak with more reason and sense, in a time when reason and sense are replaced with scaremongering and poor arguments from those who seek to profit from England's further integrating into a federal state.

Ed: typo

What? I wasn't disputing that the Lords might know something we don't. I was arguing that you yourself have a responsibility to find the 'proof' of the good of the EU, rather than sit there sneering at everyone because you can't be arsed to do it yourself.

P.S. whilst the Lords as an institution has been remarkably positive in my eyes in some ways, do tell how the power of corruption doesn't affect those in the Lords? You say it yourself: 'highest places in the industries' and then 'commons politics are influence by business'. Whut? By your logic, surely some in the Lords must be as corrupted as you see the HoC. Or is it because in that debate (or just the speech of Noakes?) you heard what you like? Have you listened to a Tory back-bencher, recently?

As for scaremongering and poor arguments, I don't think you can accuse one side without pointing out the enormously jaundiced reporting of the evils of the EU. That's simply not honest.

Edit: to make it clear, I am not necessarily anti/pro-EU here. It's more the terms of debate that I am interested in. At heart I think a re-negotiation, of all states, might be a positive thing, but I don't necessarily buy the idea that more integration OR removal from is the way forward.

Moot_Point wrote:Lady Baroness Noaks speech pertaining to the EU. I was glad to hear that there are reports that indicate there is no evidence that a no vote would hurt the economy. So, are the economists just scaremongering those who know no better that not joining the EU would be detrimentally disastrous for England's economic future.

Er, she actually says there has been no definitive study, and one report suggests the economic 'plus or minus' could be very small. I.e. it's very hard to tell. Which is fair enough! But don't pretend that's 'no evidence that a no vote would hurt the economy' - especially if no definitive report exists.

Those in power in the commons are corrupted by the press and big business because the former promises not to write stuff that'll lose them votes, while the latter promises them jobs, which'll win them votes, and tax contributions, which'll make balancing the budget easier, which'll win them votes.

No votes in the house, so no bias on that front. Just a pity so many of them are appointed peers now, so biased from the start.

Everyone's 'biased', it's not a useful term. It's more a matter of controlling that bias and innate emotional/intellectual weight that sits behind the bias, and trying to achieve the best for the whole.